Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 31, 2006; Florida; State Appellate Court
Timothy St. Fleur appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, with the court affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for further proceedings. Olive Schavon St. Fleur filed a Petition for Support in December 2003, alleging a marriage from March 10, 1999, to a separation on July 21, 2003, with two minor children at the time of filing. The wife sought alimony and child support, while the husband responded with a counter-petition for dissolution. Initially, the wife's gross income was reported as $1,680 monthly, later increasing to $3,360. A Mediation Agreement established shared parental responsibility, with the wife as the primary residential parent, noting the husband's inability to drive due to a disability.
Child support calculations used the husband's disability income of $1,440 and the wife's net income of $3,460, resulting in support obligations of $1,086.30 for the wife and $443.70 for the husband. The husband later filed a motion to recuse Judge Korda, citing perceived bias, but the motion was denied. During a hearing, the wife sought modifications to the agreement due to changed circumstances, including new daycare expenses for their children. She provided evidence of her current net income of $2,206, with changes in her overtime work pattern.
On appeal, the husband contends the trial court improperly denied his disqualification motion. The court noted that a judge must evaluate the legal sufficiency of such motions without determining the truth of the allegations, referencing case law that supports the judge's discretion in maintaining impartiality despite expressed frustrations.
The trial court's handling of the case involved several key issues regarding the wife's income, child support calculations, marital debt, and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision not to disqualify himself despite expressing frustration over the wife's and her counsel's absence at a hearing. It was determined that the trial court appropriately assessed the legal sufficiency of the disqualification motion without verifying the truth of the facts alleged by the wife.
The appellant raised multiple concerns:
A) The trial court's findings regarding the wife's income lacked sufficient evidence.
B) The court failed to impute income to the wife.
C) There were miscalculations in determining the child support obligations.
D) The court improperly included marital debt in the child support amount payable through the Support Enforcement Division (SED).
The court affirmed issues A, B, and C but reversed issue D, noting that the marital debt should not be treated as child support. The court clarified that payments for marital debt, a property settlement, should be made directly to the wife and not through SED.
Furthermore, the appellant contested the trial court's order for him to pay a portion of the wife’s attorney’s fees, arguing that the evidence showed he lacked the financial capability to do so. The court agreed, stating that the trial court did not provide necessary findings regarding the wife's need for fees or the husband’s ability to pay, ultimately vacating the order for him to pay twenty-five percent of her attorney's fees. The final judgment was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further clarification.
